botanical code question

[John McNeill]

Dear Mark:

I think your answer lies in Art. 33.3 of the ICBN: 

"33.3.  A new combination, or an avowed substitute (replacement name, nomen novum), published on or after 1 January 1953 based on a previously and validly published name is not validly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date (but see Art. 33.2, 33.4, and 33.6)."

As I very much doubt that a regional plant guide book, even by a reputable author and publisher, would provide for these varieties "a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication" of the name at subspecies rank, I suspect that they are not validly published and can be ignored.  But, if the requirements of Art. 33.3 are met, then these will be validly published varietal names.

For our zoological colleagues, I should explain that the ICBN does not have the rank-group concept, i.e. "species group", "genus group" and "family group". Instead, as Art. 11.2 states: "11.2.  In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is published"

John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Rapporteur-général, Nomenclature Section, IBC
Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2912;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651;  fax: +44-162-088-0342
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.org.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>> Mark Egger <m.egger at COMCAST.NET> 12/26/05 4:18 PM >>>
I noticed in a recently published regional plant guide book by a reputable author and publisher two cases of mistaken status. In both cases names that have been valid published at the subspecies rank were published in this book as varieties. Although the taxa are described & distinguished from related taxa, there is no inclusion of "stat. nov." and no citation or discussion of author names or basionyms.

Can such new combinations be regarded as validly published (since they are not new names as such?) and in what manner should they be treated in synonymy lists if one is trying to deal in some way with all published names within a particular genus?

Thanks,

Mark
--
Mark Egger
Seattle, WA
USA
mailto:m.egger at comcast.net